Monday, October 01, 2018

Hannah Yeoh is correct on Sarawak

PETALING JAYA: Hannah Yeoh, the deputy minister for women’s affairs, has defended her criticism of the “Sarawak for Sarawakians” sentiments, saying Malaysians do not need to be divided by yet another factor.

“Malaysians have long been divided by race, religion and now region with sentiment such as Sarawak for Sarawakians only,” the DAP MP said today, responding to angry comments in the Sarawak media over her remarks at a forum in Kuching last week.

“We need a Malaysia Baru that focuses on us being one. The local media in Sarawak has attacked me for not respecting Sarawak. This is far from the truth,” she said.

“Sarawak for Sarawakians” is a slogan used by a vocal group of the same name, better known as S4S, which said the state had been shortchanged by the federal government.

S4S spokesman Eric Leong

Following Yeoh’s comments, S4S spokesman Eric Leong made several strong remarks against her, accusing her of looking down on the Sarawak people’s demand for more rights under the Malaysian federation.“She despises and criticises the dignity of the people of Sarawak and asked the people of Sarawak to give up everything and to dedicate everything to Malaya.

“There is nothing left for Sarawakians,” Leong said as quoted by Dayak Daily.

Yeoh denied that she was disrespectful to Sarawakians, adding that the “new Malaysia” under Pakatan Harapan has been focused on empowering the state.

“For the first time, the federal government intends to recognize Sarawak and Sabah’s rightful position in Malaysia. I am in complete support of all efforts being made by the new Pakatan Harapan administration in recognising and enforcing the Malaysia Agreement of 1963,” she said.

She said all three regions under the federation – Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak – should be treated as one nation.

“Any sentiment or political rhetoric that seeks to isolate one region and exclude her people from the greater nation, be it Sarawak for Sarawakians, Sabah for Sabahans, or Peninsular Malaysia for others for that matter, cannot be healthy for nation building,” said Yeoh.

Sarawak has been in Malaysia for 55 years (since 1963) but with autonomy for immigration, education, govt admin, etc though not full autonomy. But now Sarawakians are demanding FULL autonomy even after more than half a century in the Federation.

Are these public interest issues or are these parochial or vested interest issues?

State autonomy is one of the major issues. But what exactly will state autonomy accomplish?

Take the state’s autonomy over immigration as an example. What is the overarching principle: to protect ordinary citizens from undesired influence or unfair competition, or to shield vested and political interests from being challenged?

If the European Union has allowed movement of citizens across borders within the community, why do we still restrict the free movement of Malaysians within the country, almost arbitrarily and without checks and balances?

When we talk of autonomy in administration, does the state really want its own people to fill up the rank and file of the state administration? Can the state trust its own people? Are the state policies in sync with the aspiration of its own people? I am not very sure, are you?

How does state autonomy affect development issues? Has the state used its autonomy to alleviate poverty, enhance rural development, build more infrastructure and bring about better education and health care for the people? Has the state used autonomy to preoccupy itself with timber concessions, large scale land alienation and build more white elephants?

Whatever way we may choose to argue about, Sarawak is an integral part of Malaysia today.

The wellbeing of Sarawak is ultimately dependent on Malaysia as a whole. If Sarawak is poorly managed, it will affect the people of Sarawak. If Malaysia is poorly managed, it will also affect the people of Sarawak. Autonomy or not, it can’t save Sarawak from the fallout of GST, frail ringgit, 1MDB, poor resource allocation and weak budgeting.

Be that as it may, I believe state autonomy is an appealing concept that the ruling government and the opposition parties are willing to hawk. It is a good sell because it gives Sarawakians a sense of entity, privilege and entitlement.

But as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Autonomy is not a panacea that will lead Sarawakians to a bed of roses. It is not a replacement for genuine democracy and good governance. I think the earlier Sarawakians realise this, the better.

Yes, look at the EU. Is any nation there like Sarawak barring some West Malaysians from entering the state? OTOH, has Peninsula barred Sarawakians from entering the West, even to work and marry our beautiful 'princesses'?

Why discriminate against Peninsularians, your own country folk, after more than half a century? We Peninsularians have spilled blood and lives there during Konfrantasi - "tanah tumpatnya darahku".

Now, one possible reason why Sarawak is not developed as advanced as Peninsula could possibly be the restriction on the West from entering the state to invest, settle and develop business and commerce there. Has the state's autonomy on immigration been exploited by some state leaders for their own interests?

congratulations to Yang Amat Berbahagia on his wedding

Thus I support Hannah Yeoh's criticism of the parochial "Sarawak for Sarawakians". We don't need such divisive slogans.

11 comments:

Why not just have another Referendum for Sarawakians and even Sabahans to decide whether they want to be part of Malaysia with part/full autonomy or an independent nation?

That would stop a lot of all these political hogwash assumptions to score points over each other in a never ending debate.

In the UK, after the Scottish Referendum when the majority of Scottish decided to remain in the UK, all those issues of independence, scottish history and folklore of fighting for independence disappeared once and for all.

I was in Kuching about two weeks ago. It is a strange feeling when I give my IC to the immigration officer at the counter. It is not a welcoming feeling. In addition, there is an immigration slip that you must keep and give back when you are leaving. Kami tidak disambut dengan sedikit senyuman at all. There were eight of us and we were in different lanes. We all have the same feeling. Tsk tsk tsk...

Well, knowing how rapacious Umno was and still is....is it any wonder why Sarawakians are detest to allow these carpetbaggers ( a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections ) to 'invade' their country....see what they have done to Sabah....tak takut ke ? Of course the Peh Moh raped them kau kau but it will be worse if they allow Umno and Peh Moh join forces....then the whole country of Sarawak will be Melayu-nised and Islam will be the Supreme religion there as well. PAS will have a branch office there then and Jakim will have a field day...and all kaffirs will be again be threatened with everlasting hell, hehe.

With Malaysia Baru, Sarawakian naturally will want to see how the lay of the land is going to be with the PH government....but so far to date, does it look promising to them ? So it is more prudent for them to continue to keep the gate closed for the time being. Once opened, there's absolutely no going back.

Peh Moh and his empire is Example No. 1 how Sarawak for Sarawakians is meaningless without a focus on integrity and transparency.

Sarawak needs to recognise that the restriction on Peninsular individuals and firms from entering Sarawak, requiring special permits has been a double edged sword.It may have some utility to prevent Sarawakians, especially those in the far interior from being exploited, but it is a barrier to investment and attracting the best talent.

Again, Pek Moh has been exploiting the State's resources to the hilt for his own benefit, so it doesn't take Peninsular carpetbeggars to abuse Sarawak's resources.

About Me

Just a bloke interested in the socio-political whatnots around the world, particularly those in Malaysia. Loves a laugh or/and story or two, or more, but loves civility and courtesy much more, especially in politics